DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a load-sensing detector, classified in, for example, G01L5/102.
II. Claims 13-20, drawn to a method of sensing a load, classified in, for example B60P7/0861.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product may be used in a materially different process such as sensing the load on the securement member without the load-sensing detector being against the cargo (i.e., just on the securement member itself). Further (with the exception of claims 15, 17, and 19), the process may be practiced with a materially different product, such as one that is configured to detect force/tension using one or more non-resistor sensor (s).
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(b) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(c) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and
(d) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The application contains the following disclosed patentably distinct species:
Species 1: FIGS. 1-3 - the body is folded over itself, forming the channel.
Species 2: FIGS. 4-6 - comprising two spaced apart bands which are stitched/permanently secured to the body at both ends of each and define the channel between the two spaced-apart locations / un-attached middle sections of the bands and the exterior surface of the body.
Species 3: FIGS. 7-9: comprising two spaced apart bands which are stitched/permanently secured to the body at one end of each but removably secured to the body at the other end of each (e.g., via hook and loop) and define the channel between the two spaced-apart locations / un-attached middle sections of the bands and the exterior surface of the body.
The species are independent or distinct because as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(b) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and
(c) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Howard Wernow on 02/17/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of: Invention I, Species 3, claims 1-10 and 12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US 20260036479 A1) in view of Goetz (US 20220242302 A1).Regarding claim 1:Dong teaches a load-sensing detector comprising:
a body (essentially all elements of Dong which are not later cited in this rejection as not being part of the body - e.g., FIG. 1 - generally indicated by 1) adapted to be engaged with a securement member (FIG. 6 - 28) for securing a load that is to be monitored (e.g., [0005] - however, this also may be interpreted as intended use or “configured to” language, which Dong also meets);
at least one force-sensing strain gauge (FIG. 5 - 9) provided on the body (e.g., FIGS. 3 and 5 - body part 33); and
an electronics module (e.g.: [0030]-[0031], FIG. 3 - 35, 36) provided on the body, said electronics module operable to communicate load position data ([0018], [0025], [0031], [0052])Dong fails to explicitly teach:
the force-sensing strain gauge is a resistor or resistive-type strain gauge
the electronics module having at least one transceiver therein operable to communicate load position data to a remote deviceGoetz teaches:
the force-sensing strain gauge is a resistor or resistive-type strain gauge ([0023])
the electronics module having at least one transceiver therein operable to communicate load position data to a remote device ([0007]-[0009])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a resistance strain gauge, as taught by Goetz, as the strain gauge of Dong, as it is an art-recognized equivalent to the strain gauge of Dong. Further, Dong is silent as to the exact type of strain gauge used. Goetz discloses that a resistance strain gauge may be used.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the transceiver and associated abilities disclosed by Goetz in the device of Dong to allow for the user to monitor the tension and strap state remotely and to be notified via an alert if there are any issues (e.g., if the tension force is outside the threshold limits).
Regarding claim 2:Dong and Goetz teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Goetz teaches:
wherein the at least one transceiver is operable to communicate load position data to the remote device in real time ([0007]-[0009])
Regarding claim 3:Dong and Goetz teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
wherein the body is fabricated from a flexible material([0020], [0022], [0018])
Regarding claim 4:Dong and Goetz teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Dong fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the body is fabricated from a material that is one or more of water-resistant, water-repellent and resistant to Ultra-Violet (UV) radiationGoetz teaches:
wherein the body is fabricated from a material that is one or more of water-resistant, water-repellent and resistant to Ultra-Violet (UV) radiation(e.g., claims 4, 12, and 14; [0025])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the device/body water-proof (meeting the limitations of water-resistant and water-repellent), as taught by Goetz, in the device of Dong to prevent damage to the device from water.
Regarding claim 5:Dong and Goetz teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
wherein the body defines a channel therethrough, and wherein the channel has an opening at either end and is configured to receive the securement member therethrough(e.g., FIG. 6 - channel formed by the labeled and unlabeled 4s, through which 28 passes)
Regarding claim 6:Dong and Goetz teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Dong and Goetz teach or render obvious:
wherein the at least one force-sensing resistor is flexible
Dong teaches force-sensing strain gauges “encapsulated on the deformation sheet 33” ([0047], [0020], [0022], [0018]). As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Goetz teaches the strain gauge being a resistance strain gauge ([0023]). The examiner holds that this inherently teaches that the resistance strain gauge must undergo at least some level of deformation in order to sense the force/pressure/tension. Alternatively, it is well-known in the art that resistance strain gauges perform sensing by a change in electrical properties thereof due to a change in mechanical properties (deformation via stress/strain/etc.).
Regarding claim 7:Dong and Goetz teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Dong and Goetz teach:
wherein the at least one force-sensing resistor is embedded within the body
Dong teaches force-sensing strain gauges “encapsulated on the deformation sheet 33” ([0047], [0020], [0022], [0018]). This meets the “embedded” claim limitation. As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Goetz teaches the strain gauge being a resistance strain gauge ([0023]).
Regarding claim 8:Dong and Goetz teach all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Under BRI, Dong also teaches:
an indicator provided on an exterior surface of the body, wherein the indicator identifies a placement of the at least one force-sensing resistor embedded within the body
Specifically, viewing FIGS. 1, 3, and 5, the force bearing cover 32 / 2 visually (and in a tactile manner due to its projection and shape) indicates the placement of the force sensors 9 and where the load is intended to be placed. More specifically, the general center of the force bearing cover 32 / 2 visually (and in a tactile manner due to its projection and shape) indicates exactly where the load is intended to be placed such that it is properly transferred to the center point between the two force-sensing strain gauges directly underneath.
It is noted that “resistor” is met upon combination with Goetz, as set forth in the claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 9:Dong and Goetz teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Dong and Goetz teach:
wherein the indicator is one or both of a tactile indicator and a visual indicator (see rationale set forth in the claim 8 rejection above)
Regarding claim 10:Dong and Goetz teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.As combined in the claim 1 rejection above, Dong and Goetz teach:
wherein the indicator is aligned with the at least one force-sensing resistor(See rationale set forth in the claim 8 rejection above. Further, note “at least one force-sensing resistor. Dong teaches 2 force-sensing strain gauges and the “indicator” indicates an alignment of the center point between the two strain gauges, where the force is intended to be applied.)
Regarding claim 12:Dong and Goetz teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Dong also teaches:
one or more bands (e.g., labeled and unlabeled 4 in FIG. 6) which are secured in two spaced-apart locations to the body, and wherein a channel (e.g., FIG. 6 - channel formed by the labeled and unlabeled 4s, through which 28 passes) is defined between the two spaced-apart locations and an exterior surface of the body, and wherein the channel is adapted to receive the securement member therethrough
Examiner’s Comment / Allowable Subject Matter
The following claim drafted by the examiner and considered to be allowable, is presented to applicant for consideration. No consideration was given as to the effect this claim may have on dependent claims (i.e., if this claim were adopted, amendments may need to be made to the dependent claims).
The following are notes regarding the proposed claim. The phrase “consisting essentially of” prevents an overly broad interpretation (such as the “flexible” body of Dong set forth above) while still permitting other small elements such as “stitching, adhesives, heat-welding, snaps, buttons, rivets, and the like.” The examiner included “fabric” so as to be broader than only the disclosed materials. The recitation of “configured to be positioned against the load” does not limit the device such that it must be positioned against the load…just that it can function while positioned against the load (which is a feature that most all of the cited prior art cannot accomplish). The final “wherein” clause can be changed to separate the last clause into two clauses, one describing FIGS. 4-6 and another describing FIGS. 7-9. The proposed claim would result in withdrawal of the election of species requirement. Further, the limitations of the proposed claim could be modified congruent with and incorporated into the withdrawn method of claim 13 if applicant wishes to have the restriction requirement withdrawn as well.
Claim 1 (Currently Amended). A load-sensing detector comprising:
a flexible body adapted to be engaged with a securement member for securing a load that is to be monitored, said body consisting essentially of a fabric, canvas, nylon, neoprene, or any combination thereof and configured to be positioned against the load;
at least one flexible force-sensing resistor embedded in the body; and
an electronics module provided on the body, said electronics module having at least one transceiver therein operable to communicate load position data to a remote device,
wherein:
the body comprises material which is folded over onto itself and defines a channel therethrough, the channel adapted to receive the securement member therethrough; or
further comprising one or more bands which are secured in two spaced-apart locations to the body, and wherein a channel is defined between the two spaced-apart locations and an exterior surface of the body, and wherein the channel is adapted to receive the securement member therethrough.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schultz; John Andrew, (US 11993199 B2), "Wireless transmitting strap tension monitoring device";
Sacks; Justin et al., (US 20240041348 A1), "DEVICES AND SYSTEMS FOR PREVENTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRESSURE ULCERS";
Wenzel; Blair et al., (US 20220146341 A1), "STRAP TENSION DETECTOR";
Chu; Benjamin, (US 10717381 B2), "Anchor tension monitoring system";
Taylor; Curtis, (US 20190001863 A1), "Security Sensor";
BRUHN; Dirk, (US 20170267159 A1), "ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF THE LOAD SECURING SYSTEM OF VEHICLES";
GRÜTER KARL-HEINZ, (DE 102013006486 A1), "Load securing with tension straps and chain hoists";
Morland; Anthony, (US 8506220 B2), "Securing loads on vehicles";
Stoddard; James Marshall, (US 20130162420 A1), "Combination Tie Strap Tensioning Assembly with Tension Monitor"; and
Huguenot; Dustin Colin, (US 20120260740 A1), "STRAP WITH INTEGRATED SENSORS TO MEASURE TENSION".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855